Madras High Court
The Kennel Club Of India vs The Union Of India on 8 February, 2013
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08 / 02 / 2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.NO.1750 OF 2012
AND CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
The Kennel Club of India
Represented by its Secretary C.V.Sudarshan
Having office at No.51,
7th Cross Street, Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai 600 030. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
The Government
Department of Environment and Forest
New Delhi.
2.The Animal Welfare Board of India
Represented by its Chairman
New Delhi.
3.The Veterinary Council of India
Represented by its Secretary
A Wing, August Kranthy Bhawan,
Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records of the 3rd respondent dated 11.11.2011 in F.No.8-20/2008-VCI/4094 and quash the same and direct the respondents to refrain from interfering with the practice of ear cropping and tail docking in canine pups by medical procedure through qualified veterinarians.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Srinivas
For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Manohar Ponraj, ACGSC
For Respondent-2 : Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia
For Respondent-3 : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan
O R D E R
The petitioner, Kennel Club of India, was founded in the year 1896 by the Britishers and has been functioning from then onwards. The Kennel Club of India (Shortly "KCI") was registered as a Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
2.The KCI is a body maintaining breed standards and pedigrees of all recognized dog breeds. KCI is recognized by the Federation of Cyrologique International (Shortly "FCI"), which is internationally the most popular and supreme body dealing with dog breeds recognized throughout the world. The KCI has daughter dog clubs throughout India and those clubs are also registered as societies and are affiliated to KCI and in turn, KCI is affiliated to FCI. The various clubs affiliated to KCI conduct dog shows that are approved by KCI.
3.According to the petitioner KCI, on an average about 120 dog shows recognized by them are held annually in various part of the country every year.
4.While so, the third respondent Veterinary Council of India (Shortly "VCI") sent a notice dated 11.11.2011 to KCI stating that the second respondent Animal Welfare Board of India (Shortly "AWBI") intimated them that the pups belonging to certain breeds such as Doberman, Cocker Spaniel, Great Danes, Boxer etc., are being subjected to avoidable and unnecessary cruel cosmetic surgeries, such as docking the tails and cropping of the ears by practising Veterinary Surgeons and some quacks all over the country on request from their owners, which is contrary to law. The said notice further states that the pups undergo immense pain and suffering and discomfort due to the cruel procedures of tail docking and ear cropping. The said notice proceeds that the said procedures cause mutilation and amount to cruelty to animals as per the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (Shortly "the Act") and is therefore a punishable offence. The said notice also states that the developed nations, such as UK have already banned tail docking and ear cropping. Ultimately, VCI was advised to bring to the notice of the Veterinarians concerned with KCI to stop the aforesaid procedures with immediate effect, failing which, strict action against those Veterinary Practitioners would be initiated by AWBI.
5.The petitioner KCI has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid notice dated 11.11.2011 of VCI.
6.(i) The impugned notice is challenged by KCI on the ground that VCI has no authority and jurisdiction to issue such a notice threatening the Veterinarians to stop the procedures relating to ear cropping and tail docking. It is their case that AWBI can at the most advise the Central Government to take certain measures under Section 9 of the Act. It is for the Central Government to make rules based on such advise under Section 38 of the Act either regulating or prohibiting the procedures in question. It is also averred that the procedures are done for time immemorial.
(ii) According to the petitioner, the procedures are done by competent veterinarians and this make the dogs look good, be alert, avoids ear infection inside folded ears and prevents ear injuries when the dog works, in the case of ear cropping. Tail docking also prevents tail injuries to their breeds and maintains better hygiene and health besides enhancing the appearance of the dogs. These procedures, according to the petitioner, cannot be categorized as either acts of cruelty or mutilation.
(iii) It is further stated that these procedures are not banned by any law or rules framed under the Act, in India. It is stated that practice of ears clipping (cut) or tattooing are permitted under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001. It is also averred that de-horning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner. It is further averred that if the yardstick as stated in the impugned notice is adopted, circumcision, piercing of ears / nose, tonsuring etc., of children by parents are illegal and tattooing and nose piercing in adults shall also be banned.
7.The second respondent AWBI filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is averred that ear cropping and tail docking of dogs tantamount to cruelty as defined under Section 11 of the Act and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. Ear cropping and tail docking cause pain, suffering and acute discomfort to the pups and thus, the same shall be prohibited. It is also averred that Medical Associations across the world have banned / frowned upon the practice of ear cropping and tail docking of dogs and these procedures are banned in several countries. It is further stated that if the details of the web sites that are given in the counter affidavit are viewed, one could see that the American Veterinary Medical Association banned the ear cropping and tail docking. It is also stated that in England, Scotland and Wales, tail docking was banned. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that what is not permitted by law and is tantamount to cruelty cannot be resorted to. Thus, the second respondent has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8.The third respondent has also filed counter affidavit supporting the stand of the second respondent.
9.No counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent.
10.Heard the submissions made on either side.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the surgical procedures for ear cropping and tail docking cannot be termed as cruelty to animals under the Act. The dog lovers who perform these procedures to their dogs cannot be accused of mutilating their dogs. He has taken me through various dictionaries such as Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, Advanced Law Lexican of P.Ramanathan Iyer and Wikipedia to show as to what is mutilation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death. The procedures cannot thus be termed as mutilation and therefore, Section 11 of the Act cannot be attracted. He further submitted that Section 11(1)(l) of the Act cannot be attracted in cases of these procedures as the same is not inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.
12.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned letter is without authority and jurisdiction and it is only for the Central Government to issue direction of this nature by making rules under Section 38 of the Act. He further submitted that the impugned order is based on the Advisory received from the Chairman of AWBI and the same was not served on the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the letter of Chairman of AWBI was not really the letter issued by AWBI. Therefore, the same cannot be brought under Section 9 of the Act. He strenuously contended that Chairman is different from AWBI and the opinion of the Chairman cannot be termed as the opinion of AWBI. Unless it is the decision of AWBI, the same cannot even be forwarded to the Central Government as contemplated under Section 9 read with 38 of the Act, for further action.
13.The learned counsel for the second respondent AWBI strenuously contended that the procedures involved in ear cropping and tail docking amounts to cruelty and the same is illegal and is prohibited under the Act. He took me through Sections 4, 9(l) and 11(1)(a) and (l) of the Act. He also referred to Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution of India in respect of the fundamental duties of every citizen in protecting and improving the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. He placed reliance on the book "Dog" that is written by Dr.Bruce Fogle and more particularly the opinion of the Doctor was heavily relied on to drive home the point that the procedures relating to ear cropping and tail docking cause pain and suffering. He also relied on Dr.Becker's comment posted in internet, in this regard. According to the learned counsel, in view of Section 11(1)(l) of the Act, the impugned notice based on the letter of AWBI is well within the authority. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
14.The learned counsel for the third respondent VCI has made similar submissions as that of the learned counsel for the second respondent AWBI.
15.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
16.Since this Court has to decide as to whether the second respondent has jurisdiction to issue direction to the Veterinary Surgeons not to perform procedures and if they perform procedures relating to tail docking and ear cropping, they have to face stringent action under the Act, as the same is an offence, it is necessary to extract Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act, which read as follows:
"9.Functions of the Board The functions of the Board shall be -
(a)to keep the law in force in India for the prevention of cruelty to animals under constant study and advise the Government on the amendments to be undertaken in any such law from time to time;
(b)to advise the Central Government on the making of rules under this Act with a view to preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals generally, and more particularly when they are being transported from one place to another or when they are used as performing animals or when they are kept in captivity or confinement;
(c)to advise the Government or any local authority or other person on improvements in the design of vehicles so as to lessen the burden on draught animals;
(d)to take all such steps as the Board may think fit for amelioration of animals by encouraging or providing for, the construction of sheds, water-troughs and the like and by providing for veterinary assistance to animals;
(e)to advise the Government or any local authority or other person in the design of slaughter-houses or in the maintenance of slaughter-houses or in connection with slaughter of animals so that unnecessary pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as possible, and animals are killed, wherever necessary, in as humane a manner as possible;
(f)to take all such steps as the Board may think fit to ensure that unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities, whenever it is necessary to do so, either instantaneously or after being rendered insensible to pain or suffering;
(g)to encourage, by the grant of financial assistance or otherwise, the formation or establishment of pinjrapoles, rescue homes, animal shelters, sanctuaries and the like where animals and birds may find a shelter when they have become old and useless or when they need protection;
(h)to co-operate with, and co-ordinate the work of, associations or bodies established for the purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals or for the protection of animals and birds;
(i)to give financial and other assistance to animal welfare organisations functioning in any local area or to encourage the formation of animal welfare organisations in any local area which shall work under the general supervision and guidance of the Board;
(j)to advise the Government on matters relating to the medical care and attention which may be provided in animal hospitals, and to give financial and other assistance to animal hospitals whenever the Board thinks it necessary to do so;
(k)to impart education in relation to the humane treatment of animals and to encourage the formation of public opinion against the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and for the promotion of animal welfare by means of lectures, books, posters, cinematographic exhibitions and the like;
(l)to advise the Government on any matter connected with animal welfare or the prevention of infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.
10.Power of Board to make regulations.- The Board may subject to the previous approval of the Central Government, make such regulations as it may think fit for the administration of its affairs and for carrying out its functions.
11.Treating animals cruelly.- (1) If any person-
(a)beats, kicks, overrides, overdrives, overloads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes or, being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated; or
(b)employs in any work or labour or for any purpose any animal which, by reason of its age or any disease, infirmity, wound, sore or other cause, is unfit to be so employed, or being the owner, permits any such unfit animal to be so employed; or
(c)wilfully and unreasonably administers any injurious drug or injuries substance to any animal or wilfully and unreasonably causes or attempts to cause any such drug or substance to be taken by any animal; or
(d)conveys or carries, whether in or upon any vehicle or not, any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering; or
(e)keeps or confines any animal in any cage or other receptacle which does not measure sufficiently in height, length and breadth to permit the animal a reasonable opportunity for movement; or
(f)keeps for an unreasonable time any animal chained or tethered upon an unreasonably short or unreasonably heavy chain or cord; or
(g)being the owner, neglects to exercise or cause to be exercised reasonably any dog habitually chained up or kept in close confinement; or
(h)being the owner of any animal, fails to provide such animal with sufficient food, drink or shelter; or
(i)without reasonable cause, abandons any animal in circumstances which render it likely that it will suffer pain by reason of starvation or thirst; or
(j)wilfully permits any animal, of which he is the owner, to go at large in any street while the animal is affected with contagious or infectious disease or, without reasonable excuse permits any diseased or disabled animal, of which he is the owner, to die in any street; or
(k)offers for sale or, without reasonable cause, has in his possession any animal which is suffering pain by reason of mutilation, starvation, thirst, over-crowding or other ill-treatment; or
(l)mutilates any animal or kills any animal (including stray dogs) by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner; or
(m)solely with a view to providing entertainment-
(i)confines or causes to be confined any animal (including tying of an animal as a bait in a tiger or other sanctuary) so as to make it an object of prey for any other animal; or
(ii)incites any animal to fight or bait any other animal; or
(n)organises, keeps, uses or acts in the management of, any place for animal fighting or for the purpose of baiting any animal or permits or offers any place to be so used or receives money for the admission of any other person to any place kept or used for any such purposes; or
(o)promotes or takes part in any shooting match or competition wherein animals are released from captivity for the purpose of such shooting, he shall be punishable, in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupees, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both.
(2)For the purposes of sub-section (1), an owner shall be deemed to have committed an offence if he has failed to exercise reasonable care and supervision with a view to the prevention of such offence:
Provided that where an owner is convicted of permitting cruelty by reason only of having failed to exercise such care and supervision, he shall not be liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
(3)Nothing in this section shall apply to -
(a)the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner; or
(b)the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed; or
(c)the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force; or
(d)any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or
(e)the commission or omission of any act in the course of a destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering."
17.Section 9 of the Act contemplates that AWBI can only advise the Government on the matters stated in Section 9 of the Act. It is only for the Central Government to give effect to those advise by making relevant rules under the rule making power under Section 38 of the Act.
18.Further, Section 37 of the Act contemplates that the Central Government can delegate its power under the Act only to the State Government. Therefore, AWBI cannot be delegated the powers of the Central Government under the Act.
19.The regulations, that can be framed by the AWBI under Section 10 of the Act are only for the purpose of administration of the affairs of the Board and for carrying out its functions. The AWBI cannot make regulations prohibiting ear cropping and tail docking.
20.At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 made by the Central Government by exercising its rule making power under Section 38 of the Act. In this regard, Rule 8 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, is extracted hereunder:
"8.Identification and Recording: Sterilized dogs shall be vaccinated before release and the ears of these dogs should either be clipped and / or tatooed for being identified as sterilized or immunised dogs. In addition, the dogs may be given token or nylon collars for identification and detailed records of such dogs shall be maintained. Branding of dogs would not be permitted."
Rule 7 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 provides for capturing / sterilization / immunization / release of the Dogs.
21.It is an admitted fact that the Central Government has not framed any rules under Section 38 of the Act relating to ear cropping and tail docking of Dogs. Therefore, I am of the view that the second respondent cannot issue the impugned direction as they lack power and jurisdiction.
22.Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is based on the advisory of the Chairman of AWBI and AWBI did not take any decision. The counter affidavit also has categorically stated that the Chairman, being a reputed Veterinary Doctor, his opinion on the tail docking and ear cropping has to be accepted and the procedures shall not be permitted.
23.I am not able to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the second respondent that the Chairman and AWBI are one and the same. In my view, AWBI is different from Chairman. AWBI is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and the Board means, the Board established under Section 4 and as reconstituted from time to time under Section 5-A of the Act. Section 9 of the Act also contemplates providing of advice by AWBI and not by the Chairman. Hence, the advisory of the Chairman cannot be treated as the decision of AWBI and in fact, I came to the conclusion that even the AWBI has no authority to issue a direction prohibiting the procedures and the same shall be done by the Central Government by exercising its rule making power under Section 38 as done in the case of Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
24.The next submission is whether the procedures relating to ear cropping and tail docking amounts to cruelty under Section 11 of the Act, warranting the Board to issue a direction as contained in the impugned order. In this regard, the learned counsel for the second respondent has relied on Section 11(1)(a) and (l) of the Act.
25.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the dictionary meaning for mutilation as per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, Advanced Law Lexican of P.Ramanathan Iyer and Wikipedia, and submitted that ear cropping and tail docking cannot be termed as mutilation.
26.The meaning of the words " mutilate" and "mutilation" as per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary reads as follows:
"mutilate injure, damage or disfigure by breaking, tearing or cutting off a necessary part: The invaders cut off their prisoners' arms and legs and threw their mutilated bodies into the ditch. / A madman mutilated the painting by cutting holes in it / The editor mutilated my text by removing whole paragraphs from it.
mutilation (a) mutilating or being mutilated: Thousands suffered death or mutilation as a result of the bomb attacks. (b) (c) injury, damage or loss caused by this."
The meaning of the words " mutilate" and "mutilation" as per New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary reads as follows:
"mutilate pres. part. mutilating past and past part. mutilated v.t. to hack or tear off a limb or other important part of (a person or animal) / to damage (something) seriously by destroying or removing some essential part of it.
mutilation mutilating or being mutilated / the resulting injury."
The meaning of the words " mutilate" and "mutilation" as per Advanced Law Lexican of P.Ramanathan Iyer reads as follows:
"mutilate To cut off a limb or an essential part of the body; to deprive of some essential part; to render imperfect.
mutilation The depriving a man of any member, or limb; cutting off or destroying a part of a document. A word sometimes used in the sense of revocation."
Mutilation is not defined in the Act. Therefore, the meaning is ascertained through the dictionaries.
27.Section 11(1)(l) makes mutilation or killing of any animal in any unnecessary cruel manner is an offence punishable under the Act. The word mutilation or killing is used in Section 11(1)(l) of the Act. Further, mutilation or killing shall be in a unnecessary cruel manner. Therefore, I am of the view that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has much force and the dog lovers / owners cannot be accused of mutilating the dogs, that too, in unnecessary cruel manner.
28.At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Section 11(3) of the Act and the same is extracted hereunder:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to -
(a) the dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-roping of any animal in the prescribed manner, or
(b) the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or [by such other methods as may be prescribed] or
(c) the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force; or
(d) any matter dealt with in Chapter IV; or
(e) the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering."
Section 11(3) of the Act makes it clear that the aforesaid acts cannot be brought under cruelty. That is, dehorning of cattle, or the castration or branding or nose-roping of any animal, in the prescribed manner; or the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed; or the extermination or destruction of any animal under the authority of any law for the time being in force; or the commission or omission of any act in the course of a destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering, are taken out of the term cruelty.
29.Reading Section 11(3) of the Act along with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that piercing of ears / nose, tonsuring etc., of children by parents cannot be termed as cruel, make it clear that unless there is any direction issued by the Central Government in exercise of its rule making power under Section 38 of the Act, ear cropping and tail docking cannot be prevented by the second and third respondents. It is not disputed that the police personnel have done ear cropping and tail docking for the dogs in their department. In UK the procedures concerned in this case are only regulated and not prohibited.
30.The learned counsel appearing on either side produced text book references relating to ear cropping and tail docking.
31.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in HASHMATTULLAH VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [1996 (4) SCC 391] for the proposition that every article published or a book written cannot ipso facto be regarded as conclusive or worthy of acceptance. In this regard, para 17 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"17.The High Court has referred to and relied upon a number of articles and books written by different persons in coming to the conclusion that bulls and bullocks are useful animals, even if they become old, and their slaughter should be banned. Dr Singhvi has also sought to rely on some of such documents. The appellant does not admit that the material relied upon by the High Court presents the correct picture. Till what age the cattle in question are useful is normally a question of fact. In deciding such a question the High Court should have been careful in selecting the material on which it sought to rely. Every article published or a book written cannot ipso facto be regarded as conclusive or worthy of acceptance. What is stated therein may only be a view of the author and may not be based on a data which is scientifically collected from a reliable source. The writ court has to be very careful in accepting what date should be accepted and relied upon if there is a bona fide dispute between the parties about the correctness of the same, as in this case. For example in the instant case not only the High Court but Dr Singhvi has also sought to place reliance on an article written by one Mr Panna Lall Mundhra, Chairman, Animal Board of India in which he has, inter alia, stated the cattle even after stopping the supply of milk gives 3500 kg dung and 2000 litres of urine yearly which in turn supplies 4500 cft. bio-gas, 80 tonnes organic fertilizers, 2000 litres organic pesticides, increases per hectare yield by 30-40 per cent, fetches higher price for their produce as they contain more nutrient. All these gains if complied together works out to Rs 20,000 per cattle per year to the owner.
The aforesaid statement of the author does not indicate as to from where he has obtained the aforesaid information or data on the basis of which he has concluded that the gain to an owner by retaining a cattle which has stopped giving the milk is still Rs 20,000 per year. Merely because the article is written in which such a statement is made cannot be a reason for accepting as correct what is stated therein without the court being satisfied as to the basis on which such a conclusion has been arrived at. Merely because some person has made such vague and unsubstantial statement in writing can be no ground for concluding that an absolute ban on the slaughter of useless bulls and bullocks is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution."
32.In these circumstances, I am not inclined to rely on the text book reference to come to one conclusion or another. Therefore, I am not dealing in detail about those materials.
33. I am also in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when a statute govern the matter, anything done under the statute shall be as prescribed in the Statute. In this regard, para 44 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in V.N.SUBRAMANIAM AND OTHERS VS. TAMIL NADU ADVOCATE'S ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS [2011 (3) LW 328] is extracted hereunder:
"44.It is fairly well settled that when any particular procedure is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. In Babu Verghese Vs. Bar Council Of Kerala, (AIR 1999 SC 1281 = (1999) 3 SCC 422), the Supreme Court held as under:
"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, 63 Ind App 372 = AIR 1936 PC 253, who stated as under:
Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1954 SCR 1098 = AIR 1954 SC 322 and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan(1962) 1 SCR 662 = AIR 1961 SC 1527. These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 = (1964) AISCWR 57 and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case (supra), was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law."
34.The Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent in A.R.ABDUL GAFFAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2012 (4) CTC 347] has no relevance to the issue involved in this case. In that case, the issue is as to whether the National Book Trust is the "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
35.For all these reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08 / 02 / 2013 Index : Yes Internet : Yes TK To
1.The Secretary Government of India Department of Environment and Forest New Delhi.
2.The Chairman Animal Welfare Board of India New Delhi.
3.The Secretary Veterinary Council of India A Wing, August Kranthy Bhawan, Bikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN W.P.NO.1750 OF 2012 08 / 02 / 2013